Forum:Revised Language Enforcement
Voting Support Neutral Oppose #This user (RiftJargon) has already proposed a change to the language policy (Forum:Changing the Language Policy), and that discussion is still ongoing. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:47, May 3, 2011 (UTC) #For reasons which will soon be enumerated below. SpartHawg948 01:51, May 3, 2011 (UTC) #I'm not sure what this was going to be, but from what I'm seeing, I oppose this. Lancer1289 02:24, May 3, 2011 (UTC) Discussion This isn't a petition to change the language policy, it's a survey to help decide how we should enforce the rules of language. Users have made it clear that the language policy isn't the issue, it's the way that it is enforced :(edit conflict)Ok, here's the thing: This proposal would really be better off as two separate proposals, as the items being proposed are interrelated, to be sure, but are not one and the same. But, as they are being proposed jointly, I'll address them as such. *First: User of words such as "jerk", "geek", "moron", etc, in a joking manner. This bit seems odd to me, as this is already permitted under '''current' site policy''. What is not permitted is using these words in reference to another editor, i.e. using them as insults. This falls under the banning policy, not the language policy, so no loosening of the language policy would impact them. But, in the interests of discussion, here's my beef with this: Anyone can claim joking intent, even if none was present. And insults are in the eye of the beholder. No redress is provided for people who are called jerks or morons in a "joking" manner but who feel genuinely insulted. As such, I cannot in good conscience vote for this. *Second: Use of offensive words in blogs if the author deems it acceptable. This one, as Commdor astutely pointed out, may very well become moot in two days, as it is in direct contradiction to the current language policy, which as of today enjoys overwhelming support in the policy forum discussing its fate. Again though, for the sake of discussion, I'd have to vote no. Site policies are best enforced 100% or not at all, IMO. As I've stated before, I'm more than willing to talk about application of the current policy, and easing the enforcement of said policy, but the creation of "policy-free zones" is not the answer. :And that's the long and short of my position on the matter. If we were to do these two separately, I'd vote no on part one, and would try to come up with a compromise on part two, giving ground and trying to work out a solution that pleases everyone, more or less. But lumped together, I can't vote yes. Part one is just too much of a deal-breaker. SpartHawg948 02:02, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :Addendum to the author - If it's in the policy forum, it's a proposal to change the current policy. If you want a survey, do it in a more appropriate venue. SpartHawg948 02:02, May 3, 2011 (UTC) Survey was probably a bad way to phrase it. It is a petition, but not one to change the language policy, just how it's enforced. :Yup. Hence the title and the subject matter... SpartHawg948 02:26, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ---- This policy proposal has been rejected 0-0-3. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:08, May 10, 2011 (UTC)